Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001

Last updated

Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
New Zealand Parliament
  • N/A
Commenced1st day of February 2002.
Legislative history
Passed3 April 2001
Amended by
The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 was renamed from 1 February 2002, by s 5(2) of the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001 (2001 No 5) as a part of these amendments. The title wording of the "Matrimonial Property"; as it was known initially was adjusted to the current "Property (Relationships)". The Act is commonly confused due to this particular amendment.
Related legislation
Property (Relationships) Act 1976; Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 19)
Status: Current legislation

The New Zealand Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001 was implemented to provide essential updates to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (previously called the 'Matrimonial Property Act 1976'). [1] The act updates definitions to include same-sex relationships, death in marriages and De facto separation. It re-outlines requirements in to the division of property and aims to modernize past concepts of relationships, marriage and property involved in such arrangements. The amendment specifically states its recognition of male and female relationship equity, socioeconomic status, same sex relationships and children; providing updates in definition since development in related legislation. [1] The main policy of the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001 cites a goal for equal sharing of property from both relationship parties; upholding values of fairness and justice. [1]

Contents

History

The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 was established to deal primarily with the division of the property of married, de facto and civil union couples upon divorce or separation. The initial act was known as the 'Matrimonial Property Act 1976, though was updated upon amendment due to changes in the New Zealand definition of what constitutes a legal relationship. This change in name was a part of the 2001 amendments despite confusion regarding its initial implementation in 1976. [1] This act was amended again in 2005 following the controversial civil union Act 2004; making it legal for same-sex unions to be included under definition as a 'civil-union'. [1] Changing family structures in New Zealand grew the necessity for an amendment to the seemingly outdated relationship definition in 2001. [2]

The addition of the 2001 amendments also sought to further include other circumstances that would otherwise effect the outcome of a division of property. [1] This may include, but is not limited to socio-economic status, de facto relationships, civil unions, division of labour, marriage and native land issues. [1]

Amendments

Division of Property

The act is mainly applied to define the how property is divided upon termination, separation or death in/of a relationship. The act applies itself differently depending on type and length of relationship. Provisions of the act may also differ depending on whether both beneficiaries are alive or if one is deceased. [1] Property is defined as family home (whenever acquired), all jointly owned property (whether acquired before or after the relationship occurred), proportion of the value of any life insurance policy, any policy of other insurance, proportion of superannuation value, any income or gains, etc. [1]

Equal Sharing

In Section 1G(d): amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 3(4) of the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 19), it states that the assessment of the division of property in equal sharing must be noted by: what basis property is divided, relationship tenure of more than 3 years, living standards and income and marital contribution of each partner of the relationship to maintain equity in division. [1] Part 5 of the act also addresses what rights secured and unsecured creditors maintain, and what extent may the share be of unsecured credits a spouse or partner has. [1] The proceeding thus deals with general to more specific issues relating to the division of property but ultimately aims to maintain legal equity and 'fairness' in ultimatum. [1]

New Additions

The 2001 amendment mainly addressed the recent legislative additions to the definition of a 'relationship' within New Zealand. The purpose of this act is to "reform the law relating to the property of married couples...recognize the equal contribution of husband and wife...and of de facto partnership" and "...to provide for a just division of the relationship property...". [1] The reformed principles of the act follow the guide that: "men and women have equal status", "all forms of contribution...[to the relationship]...have equal status", that a "just division of relationship property has regard to [ socio-economic status]" and that "relationship property should be resolved as inexpensively, simply and speedily as is consistent with justice". [1]

Criticism

There has been much academic criticism regarding the effectiveness of the act in cases of agriculture, native land and the general 'effectiveness' of the 2001 amendment. [3] One of the main areas of criticism within the act has been the alleged prevalence of 'sham trusts', 'alter-ego' trusts, the bundle of rights doctrine and 'illusory trusts'. [3] There is a common call for the clarification of definitions to include such cases. There is a growth in the idea that these issues do not allow the legislation to fulfil its original intention. [3] Criticism has also been placed upon the lack of modernity the current amended act entails. [4]

De facto Relationships

Criticism regarding the balance of equity within the act has also been deconstructed. While the amendment balances gender position and re-defines relationship to broaden the individuals involved with property, some inconsistency regarding de facto pairings has been cited. [3] Under the act's amendments, both married and civil union couples maintain higher access to compensation than unmarried de facto couples. The policy of the legislative landscape maintains itself under the guise of equal sharing and the definition and place of de facto relationships within the act therefore somewhat contradicts this. [3] The de facto couple's place outlined in the amendment therefore incites conflict with the core directive of the Property (Relationships) Act. [3] Therefore, the basis of this criticism stems from the contradiction of the act's purpose in maintaining equal sharing for both parties of a relationship against the lack of compensation in de facto pairings. [3] This had led to proposition for change in up-holding policy purpose. [3]

Socio-Economic Status

Issues regarding the just division of property amongst plaintiffs of varying socio-economic status has also been critiqued in recent years. [4] The current Property (Relationships) Act under amendment does not account for equity in a relationship rather focusing on specifically financial and physical objects of a relationship; i.e. it does not account for a stay-at-home parent or other domestic duties. [4] This division of labour both domestic and work-force related does not appear in detail under definition in the act's amendments and has been highly criticised due to a statistical shift of household labour in New Zealand; often leading to a financial disadvantage to partner A or B. [4] For Example, Women are much more likely to leave the work force after pregnancy while their partners are also statistically likely to support the domestic arrangement financially; thus creating a financial divide between partners despite both individuals retaining a clear role within the familial unit. [4] This inconsistency within definition has led to many cases being decided by court, which out of 15 cases over 16 years, has remained equally as inconsistent and conservative leading to the further call for change in the Amendment. [4]

Notable Cases

Ward v Ward

The Ward v Ward issue is a commonly presented case that showcases the implementation of the amended 2001 legislation. The couple were married for fourteen years in which the Mr Ward inherited a farming business. Legal advisers recommended the couple invest half the shares. The shares were then transferred in to a trust by the couple and soon began incurring debts owed by the trustees. [5] Upon the couple's separation each plaintiff was owed equal from the incurred debts but the value of the farm had significantly increased in the period. [5] This was noticeably less than what would have been received by Mrs Ward had her relationship property entitlement been retained through share ownership. [5] As Mrs Ward was party to the disposition she retained no ability to s44 to claim that the outcome was to diminish her rights. [5] However the balance of debt incurred outside of the investment trust was not sufficient to cover Mrs Ward's entitlement in the claim. [3] Section 182 of the act therefore allowed Mrs Ward to provide compensation, and the court ordered 50% of the trust to be resettled separately. [5] Had the claimants maintained a de facto relationship, section 182 would not have been lawful and Mrs Ward would not have received her perceived compensation and redress. [3] This case is often cited in presenting inconsistencies within the 2001 amendments of the Property (Relationships) Act. [3]

O v S

The O v S case presents a result in which a de facto relationship sees a seemingly more unfair order over property ownership. This case is commonly cited due to its example of de facto relationship status remaining inconsistent with the 2001 Amendment Act's core policy. The O and S parties maintained a de facto relationship for 10 years prior to separation. The related trust was discovered as an alter-ego and therefore justified a trust claim of $75,000; the judge however ordered in favour of the Property (Relationships) Act. [3] Though there was an attempt to defeat rights under s44, property was received by the second respondents under good faith. [3] Compensation was still ordered however, the judge allowed the husband the ability to raise the funds on the basis of past business evidence. [3] Thus, the wife would have to wait for redress on the husband's terms despite other income and trust sources. [3] Had O and S been married, this outcome would have likely presented different results. This case has led to much criticism regarding the status and definition of trusts in New Zealand legislation, citing in-coherency of definition. [3]

Future Propositions

A call for a modern-approach has been increasingly active to reform current relationship legislation. [4] increasing criticism has paved further discussion regarding future amendments to the act. [4] This includes the addition of definitions relating to UN-specified trusts, native land entitlements and further clarification of legislative definitions. [3]

Other propositions include the further redefinition of relationships. The 2001 amendments aimed to re-address relationship standings within legislation, further specification has been cited as an area for redevelopment. [3] The case of Ward V Ward brought a conceptual flaw to light regarding the amendment act's original policy of maintaining equal sharing in a relationship. [3] The lack of specification regarding de facto relationships in this amendment has warranted lawmakers to suggest changes to amend this and further fulfil the act's core directive. [4]

The topic of immeasurable contributions within relationships has also maintained significant controversy under the 2001 amendment's re-definition. This has led for a call to update such definitions to add more specific terms for ease of property distribution. [4] Domestic duties, child birth and child care are relationship contributions that cannot be divided upon separation and can therefore leave some individuals short-handed following separation or divorce. Future proposals have named the addition of these actions in a relationship to be included as part of a newly proposed amendment to further conceptual relationship equity post-separation as opposed to the current policy of equal sharing. [4] The current status of equality within the 2001 amendment has left some individuals without an equal share of the relationship; as seen in the case of O v S. [3] O v S and cases not too dissimilar have left a growing movement of proposal that is not un-welcomed by New Zealand legislators, and is therefore not unlikely to have observed changes and additions made in future. [4]

Related Research Articles

De facto describes practices that exist in reality, regardless of whether they are officially recognized by laws or other formal norms. It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with de jure.

Common-law marriage, also known as non-ceremonial marriage, sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, de facto marriage, or marriage by habit and repute, is a marriage that results from the parties' agreement to consider themselves married and subsequent cohabitation, rather than through a statutorily defined process. Not all jurisdictions permit common law marriage, but will typically respect the validity of such a marriage lawfully entered in another state or country.

A prenuptial agreement, antenuptial agreement, or premarital agreement is a written contract entered into by a couple before marriage or a civil union that enables them to select and control many of the legal rights they acquire upon marrying, and what happens when their marriage eventually ends by death or divorce. Couples enter into a written prenuptial agreement to supersede many of the default marital laws that would otherwise apply in the event of divorce, such as the laws that govern the division of property, retirement benefits, savings, and the right to seek alimony with agreed-upon terms that provide certainty and clarify their marital rights. A premarital agreement may also contain waivers of a surviving spouse's right to claim an elective share of the estate of the deceased spouse.

A domestic partnership is an intimate relationship between people, usually couples, who live together and share a common domestic life but who are not married. People in domestic partnerships receive legal benefits that guarantee right of survivorship, hospital visitation, and other rights.

Shared parenting, shared residence, joint residence, shared custody, joint physical custody, equal parenting time (EPT) is a child custody arrangement after divorce or separation, in which both parents share the responsibility of raising their child(ren), with equal or close to equal parenting time. A regime of shared parenting is based on the idea that children have the right to and benefit from a close relationship with both their parents, and that no child should be separated from a parent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fiduciary</span> Person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in New Brunswick</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in New Brunswick since June 23, 2005 in accordance with a ruling from the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick. This decision followed similar cases in eight other provinces and territories, and pre-dated by only one month the federal Civil Marriage Act of 2005, which legalised same-sex marriage throughout Canada. New Brunswick was the ninth jurisdiction in Canada to recognise same-sex marriage, and the twelfth worldwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marriage Act 1961 (Australia)</span>

The Marriage Act 1961(Cth) is an act of the Parliament of Australia which regulates marriage in Australia. Since its passage in 1961, it has been amended on numerous occasions and applies uniformly throughout Australia (including its external territories); and any law made by a state or territory inconsistent with the Act is invalid. The Act was made under the power granted to the federal parliament under section 51(xxi) of the Australian Constitution. Before the passage of the Act, each state and territory had its own marriage laws. The Act only recognises monogamous marriages that comply with the requirements of the Act; other forms of union, including traditional Aboriginal marriages, are not recognised. However, the Family Law Act 1975 treats de facto relationships and polygamous marriages as marriages for the purpose of recognising the rights of parties at a breakup. Since 2009, the Family Law Act 2009 has also recognised the property rights of each partner of de facto relationships on separation.

Section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution of Australia is a provision in the Australian Constitution which empowers the Australian Parliament to legislate on matters referred to it by any state. As Australia is a federation, both states and the Commonwealth have legislative power, and the Australian Constitution limits Commonwealth power. Section 51(xxxvii) allows for a degree of flexibility in the allocation of legislative powers.

Australian family law is principally found in the federal Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 as well as in other laws and the common law and laws of equity, which affect the family and the relationship between those people, including when those relationships end. Most family law is practised in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia. Australia recognises marriages entered into overseas as well as divorces obtained overseas if they were effected in accordance with the laws of that country. Australian marriage and "matrimonial causes" are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia and internationally by marriage law and conventions, such as the Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Australia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Australia rank among the highest in the world; having significantly advanced over the latter half of the 20th century and early 21st century. Opinion polls and the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey indicate widespread popular support for same-sex marriage within the nation. A 2013 Pew Research poll found that 79% of Australians agreed that homosexuality should be accepted by society, making it the fifth-most supportive country surveyed in the world. With its long history of LGBT activism and annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras festival, Sydney has been named one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Law Act 1975</span>

The Family Law Act 1975(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. It has 15 parts and is the primary piece of legislation dealing with divorce, parenting arrangements between separated parents (whether married or not), property separation, and financial maintenance involving children or divorced or separated de facto partners: in Australia. It also covers family violence. It came into effect on 5 January 1976, repealing the Matrimonial Causes Act 1961, which had been largely based on fault. On the first day of its enactment, 200 applications for divorce were filed in the Melbourne registry office of the Family Court of Australia, and 80 were filed in Adelaide, while only 32 were filed in Sydney.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Australia since 9 December 2017. Legislation to allow it, the Marriage Amendment Act 2017, passed the Parliament of Australia on 7 December 2017 and received royal assent from Governor-General Peter Cosgrove the following day. The law came into effect on 9 December, immediately recognising overseas same-sex marriages. The first same-sex wedding under Australian law was held on 15 December 2017. The passage of the law followed a voluntary postal survey of all Australians, in which 61.6% of respondents supported legalisation of same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Property (Relationships) Act 1976</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 is a New Zealand statute that primarily deals with the division of property of married couples, de facto couples and civil union couples when they separate or when one of them dies. In general, the couple's property is to be divided equally between them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in South Australia</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the Australian state of South Australia are advanced and well-established. South Australia has had a chequered history with respect to the rights of LGBT people. Initially, the state was a national pioneer of LGBT rights in Australia, being the first in the country to decriminalise homosexuality and to introduce a non-discriminatory age of consent for all sexual activity. Subsequently, the state fell behind other Australian jurisdictions in areas including relationship recognition and parenting, with the most recent law reforms regarding the recognition of same-sex relationships, LGBT adoption and strengthened anti-discrimination laws passed in 2016 and went into effect in 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marriage in Australia</span>

Marriage in Australia is regulated by the federal government, which is granted the power to make laws regarding marriage by section 51(xxi) of the constitution. The Marriage Act 1961 applies uniformly throughout Australia to the exclusion of all state laws on the subject.

<i>Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013</i> Former Australian Capital Territory legislation

The Marriage Equality Act 2013 was an act of parliament of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly that was intended to legalise same-sex marriage in the ACT. It was first presented to the ACT Legislative Assembly on 19 September 2013 by the ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell. The law intended to build on the existing recognition of same-sex unions in the Australian Capital Territory, which included recognition of de facto partners, civil partnerships and same-sex-only civil unions. The Act was passed in the Legislative Assembly on 22 October 2013. It came into operation on 7 November although wedding ceremonies under the provisions of the Act did not occur until 7 December 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Western Australia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in Western Australia have seen significant progress since the beginning of the 21st century, with male sex acts legal since 1990 and the state parliament passing comprehensive law reforms in 2002. The state decriminalised male homosexual acts in 1990 and was the first to grant full adoption rights to LGBT couples in 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the Northern Territory</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Australia's Northern Territory have the same legal rights as non-LGBT people. The liberalisation of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Australia's Northern Territory has been a gradual process. Homosexual activity was legalised in 1983, with an equal age of consent since 2003. Same-sex couples are recognised as de facto relationships. There was no local civil union or domestic partnership registration scheme before the introduction of nationwide same-sex marriage in December 2017, following the passage of the Marriage Amendment Act 2017 by the Australian Parliament. The 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, designed to gauge public support for same-sex marriage in Australia, returned a 60.6% "Yes" response in the territory. LGBT people are protected from discrimination by both territory and federal law, though the territory's hate crime law does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity. The territory was the last jurisdiction in Australia to legally allow same-sex couples to adopt children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substantive equality</span> Concept of equality of outcome for groups

Substantive equality is a substantive law on human rights that is concerned with equality of outcome for disadvantaged and marginalized people and groups and generally all subgroups in society. Scholars define substantive equality as an output or outcome of the policies, procedures, and practices used by nation states and private actors in addressing and preventing systemic discrimination.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 "Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001". New Zealand Government; Parliamentary Counsel Office. 3 April 2001. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
  2. ↑ Peart, Nicola (2007). "The Tension Between Private Property and Relationship Property in Rural New Zealand" (PDF). Journal of South Pacific Law.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Devaney, Emily (2016). "How Can the Property (Relationships) Act Be 'Trusted'? An Analysis of Trust Law and Its Interface with Relationship Property". SSRN   2959894.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "Dividing Relationship Property – Time for a Change? – Te Mātatoha rawa tokorau – kua eke te wā?" (PDF). Law Commission, Wellington, New Zealand. October 2017. Retrieved 1 March 2021.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 "Ward v Ward". Supreme Court of New Zealand. SC 40/2009 [2009] NZSC 125. 3 November 2009.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.